Total Posts:125|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ought.....

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Saying "you ought to do___." is an inherently illogical statement. Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct, there is nothing we "ought" to do.

Ought therefore is a 2 part statement:

You ought to do _____, IF you want ______.

The above is the only logical way to use "ought," because it establishes a desired outcome, and then it follows that the only way to achieve said results are to take a certain course of action,...therefore you ought to take that course of action. However, if we have not established a desired outcome, for what REASON ought we act in that way?

Referring back to the sentence model above, if any one of the blanks cannot be filled, then the whole sentence is logically invalid. So, you say I ought to act in a moral manner. That is an illogical statement, a lingering claim that has yet to receive justification.

What would you use to fill the other end of the statement to justify morality? In short,...fill in the blank:

I ought to be moral , If I want ______.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 5:24:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 5:35:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And actually no as well.

You are right about it being an incomplete statement, but even a universal code of morality would not make a "you ought" statement complete.

Unless you equate "ought" with what actually happens.

Something ought to have happened because it did happen.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 6:08:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been thinking about this exact thing for a while now. It would seem that some of our chief conceptions (actually misconceptions) about morality rest on this odd problem with our language.

The more I think about it, the more I see the problems in philosophical morality as simply language problems.

I think the incomplete "ought" you were referring to (an ought statement that has missing blanks) may have, at one time, been an implicit ought. In other words, saying "You ought not do that" was (perhaps in medieval times) simply short hand for "You ought not do that or God's gonna get ya". As god-belief waned, this implicit ought seems to have turned into a "binding ought".

So since binding oughts are incomplete and (as you pointed out) illogical, it would seem that we can't make objective statements about the morality or immorality of an act. However, I don't think we can abandon the concept of morality so easily - it's simply to important of a concept to us.

I define a moral act as one that produces more pleasure than pain. I don't think I could ever render this into a binding ought (i.e. You ought to act to produce more pleasure than pain... and that's that). I don't think Utilitarians ever have been able to either. On the other hand, it would be perfectly possible for me to argue that you ought to act to produce more pleasure than pain if you want to be moral as I have defined morality. I could also argue that the utilitarian definition of morality is the one most suitable to the word "morality". I may not win 100% adherence to this view but at least my moral augments aren't based on a flaw in the language.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 7:17:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
"Everybody wants the good but we are more or less ignorant on how to get it" Socrates

Everything we do on purpose is because we think it will turn our best wellbeing,
We might call it a long life of positive affect. So let's say for the sake of argument, there is a general state of wellbeing/happiness that is level 5. So we could say that wellbeing a level state 5 equals a well-being of level state 5.
That is the (worth of positive/negative affect)=(worth positive/negative) affect to all sentient beings.
. ( Well being) me=(Well being) other
So if you act to remain logical consistent with the worth of our wellbeing.

Wellbeing related Action X(increasing) - Y(increasing) great

Wellbeing related Action X(up) - y(same) ok (but rarely are action completely isolated)

Wellbeing related Action X(increasing) - (decreasing) bad contradiction

Wellbeing related Action X(decreasing) - ( increasing) still bad. contradiction

Wellbeing related Action X(decreasing) - y (increasing) worst!

(still some more little fixes by I am trying to get some work done here!)

Straight from the hILL! ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 7:22:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 7:17:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct,

The Fool: This even more illigocial. This is down right Lazy and Crazy! No matter if the whole world believes it. Faith is the devils knowledge!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 9:08:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
Saying "you ought to do___." is an inherently illogical statement. Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct, there is nothing we "ought" to do.

Ought therefore is a 2 part statement:

You ought to do _____, IF you want ______.

The above is the only logical way to use "ought," because it establishes a desired outcome, and then it follows that the only way to achieve said results are to take a certain course of action,...therefore you ought to take that course of action. However, if we have not established a desired outcome, for what REASON ought we act in that way?

Referring back to the sentence model above, if any one of the blanks cannot be filled, then the whole sentence is logically invalid. So, you say I ought to act in a moral manner. That is an illogical statement, a lingering claim that has yet to receive justification.

What would you use to fill the other end of the statement to justify morality? In short,...fill in the blank:

I ought to be moral , If I want ______.

In the absence of "ought", what is the meaning of this statement?

Here is what I mean. There are several assumed "oughts" that you applied to constructing this post that granted it meaning.

First, you assumed that people who come to this website ought to read the things that people post here.

Then, you assumed that they should apply that principle as well as all following principles to you as they would anyone else on the site.

Then, you assumed that they would read these things with the intention of understanding them.

Then, you assumed that at least some people would respond if prompted, i.e., understood, found interest, and derived a response.

Then, you assumed that these people would present that response under the assumption that you would read that response, as you assumed they would.

Then, they present that response in such a way that you can understand, given that assumption that you will read that response.

Accordingly, they will respond to what you said, and not from something in another thread, or a conversation they were having with their mother.

Likewise, they will respond in such a way that is akin to the post you presented -- which s in the form of logical argumentation, with a mutual degree of respect, and in such a way that does not invite personal interaction to the degree that they should even directly refer to you or, for example, your character.

Indeed, this respond will also be logical in kind, so that it maintains the flow of the conversation you are attempting to begin.

These all exist, and if they did not, this post would be tantamount to:

wehauigvle8rUW{"GI8340'2hgjip3FNAVKDSV;NK AN ?XM< VD.ABJV.FJAnsj.dnsvkjfnes.nbvjdf.aenjbr.nfaejk

Period.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 9:08:00 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
Saying "you ought to do___." is an inherently illogical statement. Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct, there is nothing we "ought" to do.

Ought therefore is a 2 part statement:

You ought to do _____, IF you want ______.

The above is the only logical way to use "ought," because it establishes a desired outcome, and then it follows that the only way to achieve said results are to take a certain course of action,...therefore you ought to take that course of action. However, if we have not established a desired outcome, for what REASON ought we act in that way?

Referring back to the sentence model above, if any one of the blanks cannot be filled, then the whole sentence is logically invalid. So, you say I ought to act in a moral manner. That is an illogical statement, a lingering claim that has yet to receive justification.

What would you use to fill the other end of the statement to justify morality? In short,...fill in the blank:

I ought to be moral , If I want ______.

In the absence of "ought", what is the meaning of this statement?

Here is what I mean. There are several assumed "oughts" that you applied to constructing this post that granted it meaning.

The Fool: how is that?

First, you assumed that people who come to this website ought to read the things that people post here.

The Fool: why don't you jump in his mind already. If I post I would like a resond, it is only if they thing are interest that they ought to. but that would be seperate from me.

Then, you assumed that they should apply that principle as well as all following principles to you as they would anyone else on the site.

The Fool: he was giving and example of a rational account of ethics. No assumption necessary.

Then, you assumed that they would read these things with the intention of understanding them.

The Fool: This has nothing to do with ought.

Then, you assumed that at least some people would respond if prompted, i.e., understood, found interest, and derived a response.

The Fool: hhhmm what happened to the oughts. lol

Then, you assumed that these people would present that response under the assumption that you would read that response, as you assumed they would.

The Fool: Yes I assume when I look I will see. so you completly gave up on your point. Its a its a justified belief, that we expect for people respond to what is written. Which had to do with oughts by the way not assumption.

Then, they present that response in such a way that you can understand, given that assumption that you will read that response.

The Fool: This was dragged out a few lines ago. You are an assumption!

Accordingly, they will respond to what you said, and not from something in another thread, or a conversation they were having with their mother.

The Fool: okay now is this a joke!

Likewise, they will respond in such a way that is akin to the post you presented -- which s in the form of logical argumentation, with a mutual degree of respect, and in such a way that does not invite personal interaction to the degree that they should even directly refer to you or, for example, your character.

The Fool: lol

Indeed, this respond will also be logical in kind, so that it maintains the flow of the conversation you are attempting to begin.

The Fool: another logical response? I don't most of these are pure assumption, what is this church?

These all exist, and if they did not, this post would be tantamount to:

The Fool: Its called inductive reasoning. justified enought for posting I think.

wehauigvle8rUW{"GI8340'2hgjip3FNAVKDSV;NK AN ?XM< VD.ABJV.FJAnsj.dnsvkjfnes.nbvjdf.aenjbr.nfaejk

The Fool: this is exactly what it amounts too.

Period.

The Fool: touche.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 11:43:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everything we do on purpose is because we think it will turn our best wellbeing,
we might call it a long life of positive affect. So let's say for the sake of argument, there is a general state of wellbeing/happiness that is level 5. So we could say that wellbeing a level state 5 equals a well-being of level state 5.

That is the (worth of positive/negative affect)=(worth positive/negative) affect to all sentient beings.

(Well being) me=(Well being) other
So if you act to remain logical consistent with the worth of our wellbeing.

Wellbeing related Action X(increasing) - Y(increasing) great

Wellbeing related Action X(up) - y(same) ok (but rarely are action completely isolated)

Wellbeing related Action X(increasing) - (decreasing) bad contradiction

Wellbeing related Action X(decreasing) - ( increasing) still bad. contradiction

Wellbeing related Action X(decreasing) - y (increasing) worst!

(still some more little fixes by I am trying to get some work done here!)

There is nothing illogical about it.

Straight from the hILL! ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 7:59:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Here is what I mean. There are several assumed "oughts" that you applied to constructing this post that granted it meaning.

The Fool: how is that?

First, "ought" is equivalent to "should." Every single one of these principles is either an "ought" or a "should", which are the same thing.

First, you assumed that people who come to this website ought to read the things that people post here.

The Fool: why don't you jump in his mind already. If I post I would like a resond, it is only if they thing are interest that they ought to. but that would be seperate from me.

Ah, thank you -- perfect proof of my argument. You see, I don't need to jump into his mind. That's precisely the thing -- I can deduce his intention without any empirical evidence whatsoever. And, why? Because, I'm familiar with the form to which he's subscribing, which is a "conversation."

Then, you assumed that they should apply that principle as well as all following principles to you as they would anyone else on the site.

The Fool: he was giving and example of a rational account of ethics. No assumption necessary.

Well, I was actually referring to the principles I was listing. So, in other words, it was a logical qualifying statement that essentially stated that he's posting here assuming he'll be treated as anyone else would be treated given the same exact interactions between them took place.

In other words, he assumed that when he came here, people should not verbally abuse him or call him a retarded monkey for posting such ridiculous nonsense (I genuinely, honest-to-God do not mean that, and am stating it only for illustration). That assumption relates to a "should" that he applied to every single potential respondent of this thread. The reason why he assumed this "should" applies to every potential respondent is because he already knows that he is engaging a conversation; that the engagement of the conversation is implicit, apparent, and inescapable; that it cannot have any hypothetical value but a conversation or something else (such as, say, an argument); and that there is a reasonable, logical way to conduct one's self in conversation that is distinct from any other such interaction.

Whether that would hold true if this weren't a conversation is irrelevant, and a lack of accountability for those who come here and act immorally within that context.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:01:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Its called inductive reasoning. justified enought for posting I think.

Reason and justification? What are you talking about, ethics? ^_^
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:37:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Categorical imperative?

Your statement, that the only way one can know what one "ought" to do in a general sense is by appeal to authority, is rather dogmatic.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:49:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:37:11 AM, Mimshot wrote:
Categorical imperative?

Your statement, that the only way one can know what one "ought" to do in a general sense is by appeal to authority, is rather dogmatic.

Reason and logic aren't really an "authority," strictly speaking.

Rather, the fallacy you're identifying assumes that the "authority" is, perhaps, a person as opposed to reason and logic itself, which is really the only present authority aside ourselves that we have.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:29:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:49:31 AM, Ren wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:37:11 AM, Mimshot wrote:
Categorical imperative?

Your statement, that the only way one can know what one "ought" to do in a general sense is by appeal to authority, is rather dogmatic.

Reason and logic aren't really an "authority," strictly speaking.

Rather, the fallacy you're identifying assumes that the "authority" is, perhaps, a person as opposed to reason and logic itself, which is really the only present authority aside ourselves that we have.

The Fool: yes it does for Authorty has to MAKE SENSE first in order for you too know what they hell you even talking about when you make the sound. That is authory must a logical coherent concept. Pls Enlightens with you other jusifications, this sounds like its going to fun. ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:30:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:37:11 AM, Mimshot wrote:
Categorical imperative?

Your statement, that the only way one can know what one "ought" to do in a general sense is by appeal to authority, is rather dogmatic.

The Fool: I think you are in the wrong forum.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:36:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:01:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Its called inductive reasoning. justified enought for posting I think.

Reason and justification? What are you talking about, ethics? ^_^

The Fool: no I am talking about rant that was suppost to be about Ought which changed into assumptions, and I said that they were justified, by that fact the there is good reason to think that people in a forum would read, and responded to the thing they read in relation to the topic.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:37:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:36:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:01:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Its called inductive reasoning. justified enought for posting I think.

Reason and justification? What are you talking about, ethics? ^_^

The Fool: no I am talking about rant that was suppost to be about Ought which changed into assumptions, and I said that they were justified, by that fact the there is good reason to think that people in a forum would read, and responded to the thing they read in relation to the topic.

Reason and logic aren't really an "authority," strictly speaking.

The Fool: oh okay as appose to loosly speaking!!? ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:39:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:37:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:36:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:01:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Its called inductive reasoning. justified enought for posting I think.

Reason and justification? What are you talking about, ethics? ^_^

The Fool: no I am talking about rant that was suppost to be about Ought which changed into assumptions, and I said that they were justified, by that fact the there is good reason to think that people in a forum would read, and responded to the thing they read in relation to the topic.

Reason and logic aren't really an "authority," strictly speaking.

The Fool: oh okay as appose to loosly speaking!!? ;)

"Authority" is a "power" -- an abstracted capacity within social arrangements. "Reason," "logic," and "ethics" are not "powers." However, they can quantify powers. So, strictly speaking, they are not authorities, but you can accept them as such for the sake of validating an argument.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:36:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:01:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Its called inductive reasoning. justified enought for posting I think.

Reason and justification? What are you talking about, ethics? ^_^

The Fool: no I am talking about rant that was suppost to be about Ought which changed into assumptions, and I said that they were justified, by that fact the there is good reason to think that people in a forum would read, and responded to the thing they read in relation to the topic.

It wasn't a rant. :( Why are people suddenly accusing me of ranting. :\ Sheesh.

Well, assumptions are oughts. It was a list of what the OP automatically assumed how everyone who read his post ought to respond.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:39:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:37:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:36:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:01:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Its called inductive reasoning. justified enought for posting I think.

Reason and justification? What are you talking about, ethics? ^_^

The Fool: no I am talking about rant that was suppost to be about Ought which changed into assumptions, and I said that they were justified, by that fact the there is good reason to think that people in a forum would read, and responded to the thing they read in relation to the topic.

Reason and logic aren't really an "authority," strictly speaking.

The Fool: oh okay as appose to loosly speaking!!? ;)

"Authority" is a "power" -- an abstracted capacity within social arrangements. "Reason," "logic," and "ethics" are not "powers." However, they can quantify powers. So, strictly speaking, they are not authorities, but you can accept them as such for the sake of validating an argument.

The Fool: its not that abtract, if you are a king of a nation, but you cant make reasonable decision to keep it you will get overthrown, or say somethign stupid that they people or protector dont't like. You can't sh!t revoked quick.!! lol

The Fool: If you mean to punch somebody but instead punch yourself in the face (that is to contradict youself...hint hint) there is nothing powerfull about that. lastly try and be in two places at once, be where you are and up here on the hill. Try and walk in opposite directions at the same time and go somewere. I will meet you there. ;) I will meet you at the corner with ice cream.

The Fool: Try to explain what authority means without using logic of course. Try and do anything that is bound by logic. Who cares what you accept, there is not option. Try and run through you wall. Just don't accept logic and I am sure you will be okay.. !

The Fool: The ethic part you made up on you own.. bad strawman bad.. pls continue :) the show has begun.. get you seat! I have popcorn. do you want to make our own forum for this?
.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 5:20:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Here is what I mean. There are several assumed "oughts" that you applied to constructing this post that granted it meaning.

The Fool: how is that?

First, "ought" is equivalent to "should." Every single one of these principles is either an "ought" or a "should", which are the same thing.

The Fool: Really? ;)

Ren: First, you assumed that people who come to this website ought to read the things that people post here.

The Fool: why don't you jump in his mind already? If I post I would like a resend, it is only if they think are interest that they ought to. But that would be separate from me. But ought their own interest not by a general responsibility. There is ought to from you own interest and ought in an ethical interest. DON"T CONFLATE THE TWO. Its an equivocation. (whether you accept it or not)

Ren: Ah, thank you -- perfect proof of my argument( hahah). You see, I don't need to jump into his mind. That's precisely the thing -- I can deduce his intention without any empirical evidence whatsoever. And, why? Because, I'm familiar with the form to which he's subscribing, which is a "conversation."

The Fool: lol. No we can't read minds that well. That's called induction not deduction; every word you have learned has been done so by induction. You haven't proved anything. (whether you accept it or not)

Ren: And, why? Because, I'm familiar with the form to which he's subscribing, which is a "conversation."

The Fool: now you are just embarrassing yourself. The reason how you got familiar is by recognizing THROUGH EMPIRICAL EXPIERENCE have what people call a conversation. And even the understanding you have come to with that is wrong. (whether you accept it or not)

Ren: Then, you assumed that they should apply that principle as well as all following principles to you as they would anyone else on the site.

The Fool: he was giving an example of a rational account of ethics. It's a justified belief by induction. There are no assumptions needed and with that no ought are assumed either.

Ren: Well, I was actually referring to the principles I was listing. So, in other words, it was a logical qualifying statement that essentially stated that he's posting here assuming he'll be treated as anyone else would be treated given the same exact interactions between them took place.

The Fool: By the way you use such work in sentences I think you have a confused understanding of what logic is.

Ren: In other words, he assumed that when he came here, people should not verbally abuse him or call him a retarded monkey for posting such ridiculous nonsense (I genuinely, honest-to-God do not mean that, and am stating it only for illustration). That assumption relates to a "should" that he applied to every single potential respondent of this thread. The reason why he assumed this "should" applies to every potential respondent is because he already knows that he is engaging a conversation; that the engagement of the conversation is implicit, apparent, and inescapable; that it cannot have any hypothetical value but a conversation or something else (such as, say, an argument); and that there is a reasonable, logical way to conduct one's self in conversation that is distinct from any other such interaction.

The Fool: I thing you understanding of the term reason or logical are way off what people mean by such expression. And argument or debate, are subsumed under the concept of a discussion, not separate from it at all. This is a debate site.

The Fool: the none of these assumptions are necessity you are just spreading out the one justified believe, which is that this is forum of debate.. And that they end of it. (whether you accept it or not) ;)

The Fool: When I am walking across the street I am not thinking in my mind that I assume this first step will be followed by the next and that this next step will be followed by the next, and that this next step will be follows by the next.. and so on and so forth. I am justified to belief this because ever since being 3 I have been able to walk. One day I may make a mistake, but it is a justified belief that most likely I won't..

The Fool: A Ren you are too innocent for your own good. Lol I can't even get upset about. its just funny.!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 12:18:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: For the eighteenth time, I will venture to ask you, dear sir: how are "oughts" implicit in the Original Poster's original post, thus granting it meaning?

Ren: Well, madam, the reality is this. Whereas I can speak of subjects oblique; and esoteric and abstract -- and here, I would assume, a priori, if you will, infer, based on facts -- that interest may or may not exist, but surely, some comprehension by some will lack...

But there are other principles, primary ones, indeed -- and, might I intercede and capitalize Primary, for context -- that I can satisfactorily assume, in inferentially still, that every single pair (or single, be it as it may) of eyes that cast upon these words that I have scribed here, a great number of characteristics of such individuals, especially if they are members, including:

they are literate

they are interested in debate

they can operate a computer

they can type or speak

they understand English

...and so on and so forth. These Primary principles are those that give our reality shape and meaning -- those that allow us to interact with our reality, ever in flux, without being in a constant state of confusion. Rather that redefining everything at every moment, we have come to ubiquitously accept certain things -- such as

of
course

poetically

the smile

or

the kiss

or

fvcking, dear miss...

Are simply ubiquitous.

They are what we are as humans, who kiss and smile and fvck, and whatever else we do, that makes us human, and distinguishes those that are deviant to such forms.

Immediately recognizable, even to animals.

Can you see that?

You must see.

As you abide

by the

logic form as well, don't you?

Logic...

Reason... Able, are you?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:18:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 12:18:09 AM, Ren wrote:
Ren's The Fool: For the eighteenth time, I will venture to ask you, dear sir: how are "oughts" implicit in the Original Poster's original post, thus granting it meaning?

For one thing in philosphy is to make sure that you don't change the argument for which you are responding to, or that you speak to yourself only. It has been demonstrated the trivialness, of you excessivly redundent claim by which should be latter, but was redherring again, for another non related issue. My I should have added the word ought

The Fool: When I am walking across the street I am not accepting in each step that I ought to follow up with the next which ought I assume that it ought to be followed by the next and so on and so forth. I am justified enough from past experiences so much that I walk automatically. The question is never raised about if or not I accept an assumption of ougtness for each and everystep I make.

The Fool: well, as too stay in line to your tradition of not responding to any of the many argument I have demonstrated, you continue to write a whole page, in which you have impressed me so, with your imaginative inquiry. But unfortunatly non of that appeals to any ideas I express in my use of words before this. A better form of would be to write my argument(claims with supporting premises) then show in which way I have failed and why you speak of more then simply bold assertion. For on bold assertion is as good as the next. An rational argument being only usefull if you can support your claim is more then that.

But I see it as a well deserved charity to at least prepare the audience for the show. And with a due I say "ladies and gentelmen" introducing the innocent yet mysterious mind of REN! ;) yaaaaaaay (I am clapping, you just can't here it)

Ren: Well, ladies and gentelmen, the reality is this. Whereas I can speak of subjects oblique; and esoteric and abstract -- and here, I would assume, a priori, if you will, infer, based on facts -- that interest may or may not exist, but surely, some comprehension by some will lack...

But there are other principles, primary ones, indeed -- and, might I intercede and capitalize Primary, for context -- that I can satisfactorily assume, in inferentially still, that every single pair (or single, be it as it may) of eyes that cast upon these words that I have scribed here, a great number of characteristics of such individuals, especially if they are members, including:

they are literate

they are interested in debate

they can operate a computer

they can type or speak

they understand English

...and so on and so forth. These Primary principles are those that give our reality shape and meaning -- those that allow us to interact with our reality, ever in flux, without being in a constant state of confusion. Rather that redefining everything at every moment, we have come to ubiquitously accept certain things -- such as

of
course

poetically

the smile

or

the kiss

or

fvcking, dear miss...

Are simply ubiquitous.

They are what we are as humans, who kiss and smile and fvck, and whatever else we do, that makes us human, and distinguishes those that are deviant to such forms.

Immediately recognizable, even to animals.

Can you see that?

You must see.

As you abide

by the

logic form as well, don't you?

Logic...

Reason... Able, are you?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 7:44:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:18:02 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/17/2012 12:18:09 AM, Ren wrote:
Ren's The Fool: For the eighteenth time, I will venture to ask you, dear sir: how are "oughts" implicit in the Original Poster's original post, thus granting it meaning?

For one thing in philosphy is to make sure that you don't change the argument for which you are responding to, or that you speak to yourself only.

This is an assumed form, and if you deny the existence of forms, then this is undefined and subjective; thus, meaningless to me.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 7:46:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:18:02 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

For one thing in philosphy is to make sure that you don't change the argument for which you are responding to, or that you speak to yourself only. It has been demonstrated the trivialness, of you excessivly redundent claim by which should be latter, but was redherring again, for another non related issue. My I should have added the word ought

The Fool: When I am walking across the street I am not accepting in each step that I ought to follow up with the next which ought I assume that it ought to be followed by the next and so on and so forth. I am justified enough from past experiences so much that I walk automatically. The question is never raised about if or not I accept an assumption of ougtness for each and everystep I make.

Lies. If this were true, the term "pigeon-toed" would be beyond your capacity to understand.
mestizomongrel
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:14:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
Saying "you ought to do___." is an inherently illogical statement. Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct, there is nothing we "ought" to do.

Ought therefore is a 2 part statement:

You ought to do _____, IF you want ______.

The above is the only logical way to use "ought," because it establishes a desired outcome, and then it follows that the only way to achieve said results are to take a certain course of action,...therefore you ought to take that course of action. However, if we have not established a desired outcome, for what REASON ought we act in that way?

Referring back to the sentence model above, if any one of the blanks cannot be filled, then the whole sentence is logically invalid. So, you say I ought to act in a moral manner. That is an illogical statement, a lingering claim that has yet to receive justification.

What would you use to fill the other end of the statement to justify morality? In short,...fill in the blank:

I ought to be moral , If I want ______.

1) Jones uttered the words 'I hereby promise to pay you, smith, five dollars'.
2) Jones promised to pay smith five dollars.
3) Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation to pay Smith five dollars.
4) Jones is under an obligation to pay smith five dollars.
5) Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:18:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If Jones wants to be honest, or doesn't want to piss Smith off. :p
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:18:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 4:14:20 PM, mestizomongrel wrote:
At 2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
Saying "you ought to do___." is an inherently illogical statement. Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct, there is nothing we "ought" to do.

Ought therefore is a 2 part statement:

You ought to do _____, IF you want ______.

The above is the only logical way to use "ought," because it establishes a desired outcome, and then it follows that the only way to achieve said results are to take a certain course of action,...therefore you ought to take that course of action. However, if we have not established a desired outcome, for what REASON ought we act in that way?

Referring back to the sentence model above, if any one of the blanks cannot be filled, then the whole sentence is logically invalid. So, you say I ought to act in a moral manner. That is an illogical statement, a lingering claim that has yet to receive justification.

What would you use to fill the other end of the statement to justify morality? In short,...fill in the blank:

I ought to be moral , If I want ______.

1) Jones uttered the words 'I hereby promise to pay you, smith, five dollars'.
2) Jones promised to pay smith five dollars.
3) Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation to pay Smith five dollars.
4) Jones is under an obligation to pay smith five dollars.
5) Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.

Why ought Jones honor an "obligation" manufactured between two people?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:38:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 4:18:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/17/2012 4:14:20 PM, mestizomongrel wrote:
At 2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
Saying "you ought to do___." is an inherently illogical statement. Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct, there is nothing we "ought" to do.

Ought therefore is a 2 part statement:

You ought to do _____, IF you want ______.

The above is the only logical way to use "ought," because it establishes a desired outcome, and then it follows that the only way to achieve said results are to take a certain course of action,...therefore you ought to take that course of action. However, if we have not established a desired outcome, for what REASON ought we act in that way?

Referring back to the sentence model above, if any one of the blanks cannot be filled, then the whole sentence is logically invalid. So, you say I ought to act in a moral manner. That is an illogical statement, a lingering claim that has yet to receive justification.

What would you use to fill the other end of the statement to justify morality? In short,...fill in the blank:

I ought to be moral , If I want ______.

1) Jones uttered the words 'I hereby promise to pay you, smith, five dollars'.
2) Jones promised to pay smith five dollars.
3) Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation to pay Smith five dollars.
4) Jones is under an obligation to pay smith five dollars.
5) Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.

Why ought Jones honor an "obligation" manufactured between two people?

Why have a concept of an "obligation" if they don't exist?

An obligation is meant to be honored.

"Why ought I eat food when I'm hungry?" :|
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:45:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 4:38:32 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/17/2012 4:18:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/17/2012 4:14:20 PM, mestizomongrel wrote:
At 2/15/2012 3:48:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
Saying "you ought to do___." is an inherently illogical statement. Unless there is an Intelligent Design of the universe that has established a universal code of conduct, there is nothing we "ought" to do.

Ought therefore is a 2 part statement:

You ought to do _____, IF you want ______.

The above is the only logical way to use "ought," because it establishes a desired outcome, and then it follows that the only way to achieve said results are to take a certain course of action,...therefore you ought to take that course of action. However, if we have not established a desired outcome, for what REASON ought we act in that way?

Referring back to the sentence model above, if any one of the blanks cannot be filled, then the whole sentence is logically invalid. So, you say I ought to act in a moral manner. That is an illogical statement, a lingering claim that has yet to receive justification.

What would you use to fill the other end of the statement to justify morality? In short,...fill in the blank:

I ought to be moral , If I want ______.

1) Jones uttered the words 'I hereby promise to pay you, smith, five dollars'.
2) Jones promised to pay smith five dollars.
3) Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation to pay Smith five dollars.
4) Jones is under an obligation to pay smith five dollars.
5) Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.

Why ought Jones honor an "obligation" manufactured between two people?

Why have a concept of an "obligation" if they don't exist?

An obligation is meant to be honored.

"Why ought I eat food when I'm hungry?" :|

Why have a concept of obligation if what doesn't exist?

Obligation itself?

Some cultures believe wives are obligated to have sex with their husbands because through marriage they essentially become "one with" (more specifically, "the property of") their spouse. Does this concept of obligation exist? If not, why have the concept?